Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 237 U.S. 662 (1915)

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law, Court Filings | Downloads: 56 | Comments: 0 | Views: 245
of 7
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Filed: 1915-06-01Precedential Status: PrecedentialCitations: 237 U.S. 662Docket: 213

Comments

Content

237 U.S. 662
35 S.Ct. 692
59 L.Ed. 1165

HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Hartford,
Conn., Plff. in Err.,
v.
ELIZA IBS.
No. 213.
Argued March 19, 1915.
Decided June 1, 1915.

Messrs. Frederick W. Lehmann, James C. Jones, John M. Holmes, and
George F. Haid for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. O. E. Holman and C. D. O'Brien for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 663-664 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

1

On April 4, 1885, the Hartford Life Insurance Company issued to Herman Ibs a
certificate of membership in its Safety Fund Department which was conducted
on the mutual assessment plan. The certificate provided that if the policy was
kept in force, by the payment of all assessments duly levied upon all the
members to create a mortuary fund, his wife should be entitled to receive at his
death an indemnity of $2,000, payable out of such mortuary fund.

2

On May 2, 1910, under call 127, he was assessed $35.95 to meet 145 claims
which matured during the quarter ending March 31. He failed to pay and his
policy was canceled June 23, 1910. He died June 27, and thereafter his wife
brought suit in a Minnesota court against the company. It defended on the
ground that the policy had been forfeited by reason of Ibs's failure to pay the
assessment levied to meet the 145 claims. To this the plaintiff replied that most
of these claims had been paid out of the mortuary fund during the quarter, and
that the balance of cash on hand March 31 was sufficient to have paid all of the
other claims. Because of these facts she claimed the assessment of May 2 was

both unnecessary and void.
3

In answer to this the company insisted that the fund was maintained as a source
from which to make prompt settlement of claims, but that such advances did not
prevent the levy of the quarterly assessment, which, when collected, was to be
used in replenishing the fund. In support of this defense it offered a certified
copy of the decree of a Connecticut court, in the case of Dresser v. Hartford L.
Ins. Co. in which it was adjudged that the company had the right so to maintain
and use the fund. The plaintiff objected to the admission of this decree on the
ground, among others, that she was not a party to the proceeding in which it
was rendered. The court sustained her objections, excluded the decree, and
directed a verdict in her favor. That ruling having been affirmed by the supreme
court of the state (121 Minn. 310, 141 N. W. 289, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 798), the
case was brought here by the insurance company on a record which raises the
sole question as to whether the Minnesota courts failed to give full faith and
credit to the judicial proceedings of another state, as required by art. 4, § 1 of
the Constitution.

4

In order to answer that question it becomes necessary to make a brief statement
of the facts giving rise to the suit and to the terms of the decree,—not for the
purpose of determining whether the decision was correct, but in order to decide
whether the Connecticut court had jurisdiction to enter a decree binding on a
beneficiary who was not a party to the proceeding.

5

The Hartford Life Insurance Company, though a stock corporation under the
laws of Connecticut, had what was known as the 'Safety Fund Department,'
conducted on the mutual assessment plan. The company kept the books, levied
the assessments, deposited the collections in the mortuary fund, and paid claims
therefrom as they matured. It was not otherwise liable on the policies.

6

The mutual insurance plan contemplated the creation of a safety fund of
$1,000,000 from membership fees. In addition to this there was to be a
mortuary fund, raised by graduated assessments levied on all the members for
use in payment of death claims. These assessments were levied periodically and
provision was made that in fixing the amount to be levied an allowance should
be made 'for discontinuance in membership.' It so happened that the lapses
were not so numerous as had been estimated, and consequently each assessment
realized something more than was needed to pay the matured claims. This
difference between the collections and the insurance paid was retained in the
mortuary fund, and, in time, the 'excess margins' amounted to nearly $400,000.

7

In 1908 the Hartford Life Insurance Company determined to discontinue the

7

In 1908 the Hartford Life Insurance Company determined to discontinue the
Safety Fund Department and to write no more insurance on the assessment
plan. Thereafter no new members were admitted. This change of policy was the
occasion of a disagreement between the certificate holders and the company.
Accordingly, Dresser and thirty other members, residing in different states,
brought suit in a Connecticut court, 'in their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,' against the company, its directors and trustees. The
bill attacked the management of the company, and, among other things, insisted
that it had been and was still levying assessments too many in number and too
large in amount. The bill also alleged that the company had recently decided to
discontinue writing insurance on the assessment plan, and was endeavoring to
induce members to surrender their certificates and to take out ordinary life
policies in the company's stock department. By reason of this change of policy
and the consequent decrease in membership in the Safety Fund Department and
the increase in assessments the bill alleged that the present certificate holders,
who had created the mortuary fund, were entitled to an immediate distribution
of the moneys therein.

8

The company's demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. Dresser and the
other certificate holders then took the case to the supreme court of Connecticut,
where the judgment was reversed. 80 Conn. 681, 70 Atl. 39. The case having
been remanded there was an answer and a hearing. On March 23, 1910, the
court made findings of law and fact, many of which are not material to the
matter involved in the present litigation. In reference to the mortuary fund, the
trial court found that, though acting in good faith, the company, in making
assessments, had overestimated the number of lapses in membership, and,
consequently, the assessments had raised more than was needed to pay claims;
that these excesses or margins had accumulated and amounted to many
thousands of dollars; that these excess collections were in the mortuary fund
and

9

'are now in constant use in the prompt payment of losses in advance of the
receipt of the moneys to pay the same from the regular assessments—by which
receipts the fund is constantly reimbursed.

10

'The plaintiffs claimed it was improper and wrongful to accumulate these
margins and to carry this balance in said mortuary fund, and claimed that said
balance of margins should be distributed among the outstanding certificate
holders; but it is held that it is proper and reasonable that the company should
hold such fund for the purpose of enabling it to pay losses promptly, but that it
was not necessary to hold more than the amount of an average quarterly
assessment for the previous year.

11

'. . . The mortuary fund arising as above described or from any other source,
together with all income or interest thereon, belongs to the men's division of the
Safety Fund Department, and the insurance company is reasonably entitled to
hold the same as a necessary and proper fund for the settlement of death claims
on the certificates of insurance in said department, and that any excess above
the average of the quarterly assessment for the previous year shall be
distributed in diminution of assessments by crediting and applying such excess
on account of the next succeeding assessment.'

12

From other evidence in the present case it appeared that 145 members died
during the quarter which ended March 31, 1910. Their certificates amounted to
$323,919.95. The cash in the mortuary fund was sufficient to meet all of these
claims, and out of it $198,994.19 had been paid prior to March 31, leaving
therein more than enough to settle the remaining certificates, aggregating
$124,925.76, which, though accruing during the quarter, had not been finally
proved on March 31.

13

It required at least thirty days in which to adjust claims, levy the assessment,
make the calculation of the amount due by each of the more than 12,000
members, and send out the proper notices. Having made the necessary
calculations, the company, on May 2, 1910, made an assessment of
$323,919.95, as of March 31, 1910, with which to meet the 145 claims
specified. It gave notice to Ibs that his dues and assessment to meet these 145
claims was $35.95, payable on June 5. He failed to pay, and a second notice
was given that unless the company received the assessment by June 20, 1910,
his policy would be forfeited. He still neglected to pay, and on June 23 the
company canceled the policy. Ibs died on June 27. The widow then sued; and
in answer to the company's claim that the policy had been forfeited she
contended, as already stated, that the assessment of $323,919.95 was void
because $198,473.58 had, in fact, been paid out of the mortuary fund before
March 31, and there was on that date a balance therein sufficient to pay all of
the other claims included in the call.

14

1. But if the mortuary fund had been thus finally appropriated to the payment of
claims, without the right of a reimbursement from the next assessment, the fund
would have been permanently destroyed, and the company would have been
deprived of the right to maintain and use it as a source from which thereafter to
make prompt settlement. That the company had such right was expressly
recognized and adjudged in the Connecticut decree. To exclude it from
evidence and to decline to enforce its provisions was to deny it the full faith and
credit to which it was entitled under the provisions of art. 4, § 1 of the
Constitution of the United States.

15

2. The plaintiff insists, however, that she was not a party to the proceedings in
which the decree was entered, and, therefore, not bound by its terms. But in this
regard she was in privity with her husband. For while, under the terms of the
contract embodied in the certificate, he may not have had the right to assign the
policy, or to change the beneficiary, or to lessen the amount payable at his
death, yet, whether treated as an expectancy or as contingent interest, her right
to receive an indemnity depended upon her husband being a member at the time
of his death, since failure to pay the assessments would work a forfeiture. As
the members were the owners of a mortuary fund which had been created under
the terms of a plan which was, in effect, a contract between themselves, there
was no reason why they and the company might not enter into a further
contract as to its present distribution or future use. If they failed in making an
arrangement among themselves, there was no reason why—in case of such
disagreement—their conflicting claims and rights could not be determined by
the judgment of a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

16

3. The fund was single, but having been made up of contributions from
thousands of members their interest was common. It would have been
destructive of their mutual rights in the plan of mutual insurance to use the
mortuary fund in one way for claims of members residing in one state, and to
use it in another way as to claims of members residing in a different state. To
make advances replenished by assessments against those living in Connecticut,
and to make advances without the right to replenish against those living in
Wisconsin, would have destroyed the very equality the assessment plan was
intended to secure. Manifestly the question as to the ownership and proper
administration of the fund could not be left at large for collateral decision in
every suit on certificates held by those who had failed to pay the assessment.
For—whether the members of the 'Safety Fund Department' are regarded as
occupying a position analogous to that of shareholders, or are treated as
beneficiaries of trust property in the hands of the company, as trustee, in the
state of Connecticut, the courts of that state had jurisdiction of all questions
relating to the internal management of the corporation. Selig v. Hamilton, 234
U. S. 652, 58 L. ed. 1518, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 926; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Harris,
97 U. S. 336, 24 L. ed. 962; Condon v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso. 89
Md. 99, 44 L.R.A. 149, 73 Am. St. Rep. 169, 42 Atl. 944; Maguire v. Mortgage
Co. 122 C. C. A. 83, 203 Fed. 858. It was for the court of the state where the
company was chartered and where the fund was maintained to say what was the
character of the members' interest—whether they were entitled to have it
distributed in cash, or used in paying the next assessment, or retained as a fund
for the prompt settlement of claims, with the right and duty on the part of the
company, as their trustee, to replenish the same by collections from succeeding
assessments. But it was impossible for the company to bring a suit against

12,000 members living in different parts of the United States. It was equally
impossible for the 12,000 members to bring a suit against the company to
determine the questions involved. Under these circumstances Dresser and thirty
other members, holding certificates, brought suit 'in their own behalf and in
behalf of all others similarly situated.'
17

4. That allegation, of course, would not by itself determine the character of the
proceeding. Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College, 208 U. S. 58, 52 L. ed. 388,
28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182. For, in order that the decree should be binding upon
those certificate holders, who were not actually parties to the proceeding, it had
to appear that Dresser and the other complainants had an interest that was, in
fact, similar to that of the other members of the class, and that it was
impracticable for all concerned to be made parties. But, when such common
interest in fact did exist, it was proper that a class suit should be brought in a
court of the state where the company was chartered and where the mortuary
fund was kept. The decree in such a suit, brought by the company against some
members, as representatives of all, or brought against the company by thirty
certificate holders for 'the benefit of themselves and all others similarly
situated,' would be binding upon all other certificate holders.

18

'Where the parties interested in the suit are numerous, their rights and liabilities
are so subject to change and fluctuation by death or otherwise, that it would not
be possible, without very great inconvenience, to make all of them parties, and
would oftentimes prevent the prosecution of the suit to a hearing. For
convenience, therefore, and to prevent a failure of justice, a court of equity
permits a portion of the parties in interest to represent the entire body, and the
decree binds all of them the same as if all were before the court. The legal and
equitable rights and liabilities of all being before the court by representation,
and especially where the subject-matter of the suit is common to all, there can
be very little danger but that the interest of all will be properly protected and
maintained.' Smith v. Swormstedt, 16 How. 303, 14 L. ed. 948. See also
Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 330, 33 L. ed. 191, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 737; Beals v.
Illinois, M. & T. R. Co. 133 U. S. 290, 33 L. ed. 608, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 314;
Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 U. S. 155, 23 L. ed. 843; Supreme Council, R. A. v.
Green, this day decided [237 U. S. 531, 59 L. ed. ——, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724].
The principle is recognized both in England and in this country. 1 Pom. Eq. Jur.
3d ed. §§ 267, 268. In Corey v. Sherman, 96 Iowa, 115, 32 L.R.A. 490, 64 N.
W. 828, and Carlton v. Southern Mut. Ins. Co. 72 Ga. 371(2), 379(5-10), the
rule was applied in case involving the rights of those interested in mutual
insurance funds raised by collections from many policy holders.

19

5. It is said, however, that even if the decree determining the status and use to

19

20

be made of the mortuary fund was binding upon members and beneficiaries, it
could not be offered in evidence in a suit on a policy of insurance, since the
cause of action and the thing adjudged in the two cases was different,—one
involving the status of the fund and the rights of members therein while the
present case related to the right of a beneficiary to recover on a policy and the
power of the company to declare a forfeiture. But the defendant's contention
that the policy had lapsed because of the failure of Ibs to pay the assessment,
and the plaintiff's reply that the assessment was void because the mortuary fund
was sufficient to meet call 127, raised an issue as to the right of the insurance
company to levy the assessment. On that issue the Connecticut decree was
admissible, since it adjudged that the company had the right to make advances
to pay claims, and could subsequently collect the amount of such claims by an
assessment levied as in the present case. Its right so to do having been
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the decree was binding
between the parties or their privies in any subsequent case in which the same
right was directly or collaterally involved. For 'even if the second suit is for a
different cause of action, the right, question, or fact once so determined must,
as between the same parties or their privies, be taken as conclusively
established so long as the judgment in the first suit remain unmodified.'
Southern P. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S. 48, 49, 42 L. ed. 376, 377, 18
Sup. Ct. Rep. 18. So also it was held in Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 518,
41 L. ed. 1100, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 665, that 'though the form and causes of action
be different, a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction in respect to any
essential fact or question in the one action is conclusive between the parties in
all subsequent actions.'
There are other questions in the case which present no Federal question, but for
error in refusing to admit the decree of the Connecticut court the judgment is
reversed.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close